Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 10)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Mr Trappes-Lomax

Hockham

12-22

2

Cotman Housing Association

Old Buckenham

23-26

3

Flagship Housing Group Ltd

Carbrooke

27-30

4

Mr R Childerhouse

Weeting

31-33

5

Mr R Childerhouse

Weeting

34-36

6

Mr Richard Proctor Smith

Sparham

37-39

7

Mrs Laura Handford

Ashill

40-41

8

Mrs Liz Glenn

Watton

42-44

9

Mr Kevin Peters

Bylaugh

45-47

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)       Item 1: 3PL/2008/0526/F: Hockham: Land adjacent North Farm, Shropham Road: Demolition of barn/shed and erection of 4 No dwellings and garages for Mr Trappes-Lomax

 

The site of this application for the demolition of a clay-lump barn and the erection of a terrace of four cottages fell outside the Conservation Area and within the Settlement Boundary.

 

The existing barn was in fairly good condition.  English Heritage had looked at it twice, but decided it was not of listable quality.  As the barn was not listed and was not in the Conservation Area, it could be demolished without permission.

 

The proposal included provision of a bat loft in one of the garages; a new footpath along the site frontage to link with existing; and a grey-water system with storage tanks.  The design of the cottages was nicely detailed and consistent with the character of the area.

 

Mr Thomas, Parish Council, said the barn was over 200 years old and of great local interest.  It was a shuttered earth construction, not clay lump, and as such was extremely rare.  There were colonies of bats in the barn and barn owls used it.  He asked that an owl loft be provided on the new development.  He was also concerned about road safety, due to the narrow width of the road, insufficient parking provision and the speed of passing traffic.

 

Mr Neal, objector, confirmed that the barn was not clay lump and stressed the difference, saying that shuttered earth construction was of special interest and more time was needed to investigate this unique building.  He was also concerned about road safety, due to the number of HGVs using the road and speed.

 

Mr Salisbury, representing the CPRE and the Breckland Society also wanted to retain the barn and said it could be converted to a dwelling.  Its loss was against the wishes of local residents and the Parish Council.

 

The Council’s Historic Buildings Officer objected to the proposal and was pressing English Heritage for a response, but did not think the barn was of listable quality. 

 

Mr Scarlett (Agent) said the terrace of four, three bedroom properties was aimed at young families and designed to look like a row of agricultural workers’ dwellings.  The barn was only of modest quality and there were several others like it in the village.  The footpath would be a major contribution to safety.

 

Mr Cowen, Ward Representative, said the Council had a duty of care to the environment and he did not want to see the barn lost forever.  It was of significant age and retained its integrity.  The sharing of the access by five properties would cause problems in an area used by large farm vehicles.  Bats and owls should be encouraged and he urged the Committee to think carefully as custodians of the environment.

 

Members were concerned about the contradictory information on the age and construction of the barn and felt more clarity was needed.

 

Deferred, contrary to the recommendation, for more information on the construction of the barn and protected species using the barn.

 

(b)       Item 2: 3PL/2008/1427/F: Old Buckenham: Land adjacent St Andrews Close: Erection of 3 No single storey and 11 No two storey dwellings for Cotman Housing Association

 

This was an application for 14 affordable houses on an exception site, immediately adjacent, but outside the Settlement Boundary.  It would form phase two of an existing development of two storey and single storey dwellings.  The proposed turning head gave provision for access to a potential future phase three.

 

The proposal was supported by the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer who had confirmed a significant need for affordable housing in the village.  It would be built to Code Level 3 and incorporated visitor parking and footway links.

 

Mr Tatlow, applicant, had worked closely with the Parish Council, Ward Representative and Officers to develop the scheme.  There were 244 people on the housing register expressing an interest in living in the village.  Phase one had been built 16 years ago and had many long-term residents.

 

Mr Joel, Ward Representative, supported the application and said it fitted the Council’s policy to provide social housing in villages.  The scheme would enable families to stay in the village and provide accommodation for both young and old.

 

Some Members were disappointed with the design of the properties and the lack of detailing, but supported the provision of affordable housing.

 

Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions including the removal of PD rights on certain elevations, on completion of the section 106 agreement.

 

(c)        Item 3: 3PL/2008/1471/F: Carbrooke: Mill Lane / Muriel Lane: Proposed development of two affordable dwellings for Flagship Housing Group Ltd

 

This application was for two affordable houses on an exception site immediately adjacent the Settlement Boundary which was currently accessed off Mill Lane.  A new access off Muriel Way was proposed. 

 

There was an identified need for affordable housing in the village and the two units would be subject to a legal agreement retaining them as such in perpetuity.

 

Mr Muller, objector, lived in a nearby property.  A dozen other houses had already been built near his home and he had problems with flooding following heavy rain.  He was concerned about the intention to fill in a ditch and remove trees which would add to this problem.  He also said that the houses would straddle an existing sewer.

 

Miss Handford, Applicant, was aware of existing services on the site which would be maintained and diverted.  The build would be to Code Level 3 and permeable paving would be used to minimise surface water run-off.  The homes would be restricted to local people and funding and resources were available to deliver at the current time.

 

In response to a question the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer confirmed that there was still a need for affordable housing, especially for local people.

 

Some discussion followed concerning the on-site sewer and it was acknowledged that this could not be built over and would be diverted.

 

Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions including a requirement to use clay pantiles, on completion of the section 106 agreement.

 

(d)       Item 4: 3PL/2008/1591/F: Weeting: Lynn Lodge, Lynn Road: Demolition of bathroom and garage, alterations, new two storey extension to dwelling and new garage/stable block for Mr R Childerhouse

 

Councillor Bowes declared a personal interest in this item.

 

Items 4 and 5 were discussed at the same time.  They appeared on the agenda without recommendation, but following receipt of further information, they were recommended for approval.

 

These were the re-submission of previously approved applications which had expired in December 2008.  Since the previous permissions had been granted the buffer zone for the Stone Curlew had been identified and the application site fell within this area.  This was the only change - the application was otherwise the same.

 

Any development within the zone could have an effect on Stone Curlews and the policies and regulations were explained to Members.

 

An Appropriate Assessment had been undertaken and Natural England had been consulted.  There was a significant road adjacent the site and also screening to the edge of the site, therefore development was unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the Stone Curlews.  Mitigating conditions restricting external lighting and the felling of trees were also proposed.  The applications were therefore recommended for approval.

 

Members discussed the size of the stable block and the materials to be used for the extension, which provided a clear differential between the old and new.  There was concern that the actual construction phase could affect Stone Curlews and this was acknowledged.

 

Approved, as recommended, with an additional condition that no construction work take place during the Stone Curlew nesting season.

 

(e)       Item 5: 3PL/2008/1592/LB: Weeting: Lynn Lodge, Lynn Road: Demolition of bathroom and garage, alterations, new two storey extension to dwelling and new garage/stable block for Mr R Childerhouse

 

Councillor Bowes declared a personal interest in this item.

 

Approved as recommended.  See (d) above.

 

(f)         Item 6: 3PL/2008/1673/F: Sparham: Manor Farm: Erection of general purpose building for Mr Richard Proctor Smith

 

This major application was for a grain store with a small plant room to provide the energy for drying.  The existing grain store on site was no longer fit for purpose.  The building would be clad in green sheeting and sited close to existing agricultural buildings and as such would have little impact on the surrounding countryside.  A noise limitation condition would be included.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

(g)       Item 7: 3PL/2008/1690/F: Ashill: The Green: 7 residential units in 3 blocks with associated access and car parking for Mrs Laura Handford

 

Approved, as recommended.  See Minute No 27/09.

 

(h)        Item 8: 3PL/2008/1693/F: Watton and Carbrooke: Highfield House, Watton Green: Erection of detached house following demolition of HGV shed for Mrs Liz Glenn

 

This application, for a dwelling to replace an existing HGV shed, was on a well-screened site outside the Settlement Boundary.  The existing access would be shared by the new dwelling and an existing dwelling on the site, currently occupied by the applicant.

 

The site had an operator’s licence for three HGVs and the applicant felt that the change would provide a planning gain in terms of highway safety and visually, by removing an unattractive building.

 

A previous application for two dwellings on the site had been refused and recently dismissed on appeal.  The Inspector had said that a dwelling would have more visual impact than the shed and would have an urbanising effect on the rural character of the area.  He had no concerns about continued HGV use on highway safety.

 

The Ward Representative had written in support of the application and considered that the removal of the shed would be a planning gain by removing an ‘eye-sore’ and avoiding potential highway danger by changing the use of the site.

 

Mrs Glenn, applicant, explained that since her husband’s death she had not been able to carry on the business and wanted to make a new start.  She had had problems with vandalism on the site since the business use ceased.

 

A Member felt that if the business had still been in operation the proposal would have been considered a planning gain.  Other Members were also minded to support the application: the proposal was an acceptable use of this brownfield site and the removal of the possible commercial use would be beneficial.

 

Deferred, contrary to recommendation, and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of a legal agreement ensuring the cessation of the commercial use of the site.

 

(i)         Item 9: 3PL/2008/1704/F: Bylaugh: The Office, Little Lodges Lane: Managers accommodation plus office/reception/internet room for Mr Kevin Peters

 

This application was for a manager’s dwelling to allow on-site management, security and maintenance of three holiday units and to provide an office/internet room.

 

Previously the manager had occupied Swanton Lodge, which had been sold.  Currently the manager was occupying one of the holiday lets, contrary to a condition of the permission.

 

Permission existed for four holiday units.  Only three had been built.  In the meantime permission had been granted for a single garage, on part of the site of the approved fourth holiday let. 

 

The proposed manager’s accommodation would be sited partially on the plot of the fourth holiday let and extend beyond, requiring the removal of a tree, to which the Tree and Countryside Officer objected.

 

There was a policy objection on grounds of the un-sustainable location and insufficient need for an on-site dwelling to support the business.  A permanent residential dwelling on the site was likely to lead to pressure to remove more trees therefore refusal was recommended and authority for enforcement action requested.

 

Mrs Peters, applicant, said the dwelling was essential to ensure the future viability of the business and the internet room would be used to encourage electronic bookings.  She had the support of local businesses and neighbours and the Tourism Best Practice Guide said that Planning Authorities should adopt a positive approach towards essential need occupation to support tourism.

 

Mr Bambridge, Ward Representative, said that as the site already had permission for four holiday units this proposal did not represent any additional building.  The business did generate enough income to support a manager and the applicant would accept a legal agreement to limit occupation.  A tree survey had been done and re-planting would take place.

 

Refused, as recommended, and enforcement action authorised.

 

Notes to the Schedule

 

The following persons were in attendance to speak on the following items:

 

Item No

Speaker

1

Mr Cowen – Ward Representative

Mr Thomas – Parish Council

Mr Salisbury – (CPRE) Objector

Mr Neal – Objector

Mr Scarlett - Agent

2

Mr Joel – Ward Representative

Mr W Tatlow - Applicant

3

Mr Muller – Objector

Ms L Handford - Applicant

7

Agenda Item 9

Mrs Ball – Ward Representative

Mr Mace – Objector

Mr P Wells – Agent

Ms L Handford - Applicant

8

Mrs Glenn – Applicant

9

Mr Bambridge – Ward Representative

Mrs Peters - Applicant

Agenda Item 8a

Mr T Rainbird – Agent

Mr A Gibbons - Applicant

Agenda Item 8b

Mr Wright – (Tenant Farmer) Objector

Mr Warth – Agent

Mr Poulter – Parish Council

 

Written representations taken into account

 

Reference No

No of Representations

3PL/2008/0526/F

10

3PL/2008/1497/F

1

3PL/2008/1690/F

1

3PL/2008/1704/F

3

 

Supporting documents: